you're wasting keystrokes...

the mentality here is, "yeah? well it doesn't do the quarter mile in less than 13 seconds, so it must be ****."

 

The new RX-8 would be tight if it didn't have that stupid rotary engine. Mazda overated the HP on the engine. That is total bull s$%t on Mazda's part, especially since its a sports car, where people actually care about HP. Its also one of those high revving, torque-less motors that are better suited to a racetrack than to real world driving. I also call into question the reliability of the rotary engine. The old RX-7 is an awesome car that is significantly faster than the new one. However, it seems that people have had problems with the turbo's blowing up, electrical problems, blown engines, etc. And those old cars are very expesive to fix.

 

Not necessarily bro. There are alot of open minded individuals here.

In regards to the original topic, theres still ALOT of bias out there. Lets face it, people think of crappy late 70s and all 80s American cars and most were **** but truth is, there has been and still is a huge turnaround and now that quality is officially there, the Big 3 now have to work on perception more and more. DCX has it kinda easy. With Chrysler being stablemates with Mercedes, I wouldnt think it would be too difficult.

Now to my dislikings of the RX-8 (to show that I dont like it simply because it doesnt do a 13 sec ET .). First off, its an interesting car, but there are some oddities to it. The bubbly styling is just weird IMO. This was my main peeve on the SS concept, really bubbly bulging fenders dont do it for me, but thats just my opinion. Also I'm not big on the taillights either but once again, my opinion, some may love them.

Then theres the interior (sat in one at the CF auto show). The front is ok, but that circular looking thing around the center dash and radio is odd looking and really sticks out. Not very attractive IMO. Also usable backseat??? The only thing that makes it usable IS the suicide doors! If you took those out, it would be just as hard to get in and out of as a Camaro. And they are a little more comfortable than Camaro's, but not as much where I would want to be back there for long.

And then the rotary motor. Under the hood of that car is busy, or at least the one at the show was. Which is funny being the motor only displaces what, like 1.3L? Not very big, yet it looks like its stuffed in there between everything. And isnt it proven that everyday joes dont like to rev the crap out of the motor to get power? One reason why S2000 is getting a displacement bump. To lower its power band so owners dont have to rev it to the stratosphere just to get horsepower and torque. And Mazda goofing on the hp advertisement really doesnt help any. As far as handling, cant comment, didnt drive one, but if it lapped an M3, well kudos to it, it must be impressive in that catagory .

Anyhow, sorry for the long post guys. Just had to make it clear that we're not all "yeehaw, I'm gonna getum up in my 'murican built muscleumup car and go trounce all over these japcrap spurts cars wannabes!"

 

Quality of both companies is below industry average. You couldn't give me either of thier cars, they're toilets.

 

I personally don't like the Hyundai Triburon look it has, looks cheap and cartoonish...I like some of its features, but again, I tend to favor domestic cars b/c of parts/repair costs(whenever needed) and domestic styling, and yeah, domestic performance doesn't hurt.. not to mention supporting American companies, while they last...